DCS Spitfire Mk IX performance

1. It has an early 1944 setting.

 

2. That is one of the worst points to ever make that "it is the pilot not the plane that counts". When you listen to real WW2 pilots they always talk about how their airplane made them better or their airplane was not enough to be able to combat the enemy. Airplane is just as important as the pilot that uses it.

Yes because it's not that Bud Anderson was fighting some noob in that fight that was recreated on TV. No he was fighting Erich Hartmann and because the p51 was better he won :D.

1. It has an early 1944 setting.

Strike out "early" from the sentence and you have it right.

 

2. That is one of the worst points to ever make that "it is the pilot not the plane that counts". When you listen to real WW2 pilots they always talk about how their airplane made them better or their airplane was not enough to be able to combat the enemy. Airplane is just as important as the pilot that uses it.

If you're flying low and alone, with the enemy at co alt or above you, then it really doesn't matter if you are equally engined or not.

I don't know, maybe this entire DCS WWII undertaking has a flawed roadmap and the emphasis should be put on the combination of axis and allied fighters pitted against each other, bearing in mind the period they actually flew in and the capabilities.

For instance, why people are hyped about the Me262 boggles me. It flew during the last days of war outnumbered 1000 to 1. While it might be cool to have the first operational fighter jet as a full fidelity module, it will only fully shine once the B17 or other bombers are introduced. Also, it was plagued by problems arising with first jet use etc. Highly unstable aircraft.

Such are the drawbacks of a strategy that intends to meticulously model one aircraft at a time with emphasis on accuracy of it's systems, but not the greater context of it's existence. If it were that way, we'd first see a Normandy '44 map(or any other sagnificant theatre of that time), before ED releases warbird modules.

But I'm getting off topic.

Yes, the spit might be inferior in certain aspects, but that will only be half of the reason why people can get their ass handed to them online.

And apperently, the spit being modeled will be quite faster than it's real life counterpart, for reasons Kurfürst explained above.

Yes because it's not that Bud Anderson was fighting some noob in that fight that was recreated on TV. No he was fighting Erich Hartmann and because the p51 was better he won :D.

Please learn reading comprehension otto. Your conclusions do not match with reality. I said the airplane is just as important as the pilot, not that the airplane is more important than the pilot.

Combination of both is lethal.

Francis Gabreski is the finest example. He was a good pilot, but he was terrible at Spitfire. He couldn't hit his enemies and maneuver with them. And Spitfire is a regarded and awesome dogfighter.

But when he got into the P-47 he started to become quickly more profficient and was the highest scoring ace in the West European theatre.

Does that mean that Spitfire is worse than P47? No.

Does that mean that Gabreski was a bad pilot? No.

But it only shows that the airplane is very important for the pilot.

The famous quote from Galland, when he was asked what do they need to help against the British, he said he wanted Spitfires. He didn't say 'we need more training' or 'we need nothing'. First what he requested was a new airplane. And it doesnt matter if it was Spitfire or anything else, the airplane for the pilot makes the difference.

"Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos – Technik ohne Taktik ist sinnlos." I agree.

Now I suggest that we quickly get back to 'DCS Spifire Mk IX preformance' before the schoolmaster arrives. ;)

Right. So in regard to the performance of the Spitfire IX in current state.

Could you tell me please Yoyo, what is expected minimum turn time and turn radius of this Spitfire ?

Surely this is the bit to focus on:

"The Spitfire development was started by obtaining a lot of original materials including wind tunnel tests, flight tests measurements, prop (we use wooden Rotol in the model) wind tunnel tests. Wind tunnel tests both for the prop and the airframe were performed for high Mach numbers as well.

So, the parts of the FM (airframe, prop, radiators) were carefully tuned separately to get the specified parameters of the real prototypes. Then, the blower of the existed V1650-7 engine was changed to fit Merlin 66 gear ratios, the automatic shift was set to new pressure."

I say this because I would have thought that the mathematics and modern computer modeling, under the expertise of Yo-Yo, would be able to produce results that would help negate any historical human error in test piloting together with any human error in engineering differences at the time to a considerable extent.

I think it is testament to the professionalism of Yo-Yo that he has given us this information in a transparent and up-front way. So lets all try to be grown-up with our responses.

Yes, I would love to see a 1944/45 25lbs boost model of what is essentially a 1943 aircraft, but I think perhaps not everyone would agree and I do not intend to be churlish about it.

Happy landings,

Talisman

DCS Spifire Mk IX preformance

Concerning turn time,Eager to know that, too

@solty: yes, Galland admired the spits ability to outturn the enemy, but I would take that quote with a grain of salt in the context of overall abilities.

It was slower and rolled slower than the Emils.

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Kurfurst,

Are you criticizing the choice of source data, Yo-Yo's curve fitting with the DCS Spitfire, or both?

Less than 5% difference way up at 36,000ft is acceptable error.

No, he is referring to the fact that those 5% are based on experimental aircraft, if I understood correctly.

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Least I forget, I can't wait for the spit :)

And thank you yoyo for the heads up!

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

No, he is referring to the fact that those 5% are based on experimental aircraft, if I understood correctly.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Ok, so criticism of choice of source data, got it. Thanks.

Let's see yo-yo's response to the SU pump that Kurfurst brought up.

Still, if I followed this thread correctly, the fact that the dcs spit is allegedly faster than IRL, it would have the nice side effect of soothing the people that are complaining about a 1943 aircraft going up against the K4 and D9 :D

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Still, if I followed this thread correctly, the fact that the dcs spit is allegedly faster than IRL, it would have the nice side effect of soothing the people that are complaining about a 1943 aircraft going up against the K4 and D9 :D

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

It won't make a bit of difference for multiplayer. Combat at 20,000ft is exceptional; 36,000ft is unheard of.

Kurfurst,

 

Are you criticizing the choice of source data, Yo-Yo's curve fitting with the DCS Spitfire, or both?

 

Less than 5% difference way up at 36,000ft is acceptable error.

Basically the problem is that the reference data is an early prototype, with a mix of a late experimental type, that, as mentioned in the report and testified by later testing results, produced abnormally high full throttle heights than the actual serial production machines. Its very visible even on YoYo's graphs as well. The DCS pre-model produces even higher ones.

This abnormal increase in FTH will gradually boost the performance and operational altitude range to surreal levels, but it also has some effect on low/medium altitudes. The Mk IX LF was low-medium altitude aircraft with an engine that had a relatively low rated altitude - 16 000 feet. For DCS, for some odd reason the BS 543 IX LF prototype was chosen as reference, but following its trial the RAF re-did the trial with another aircraft, BS 310, and again for some reason, choose the data, or at least very similar data to BS 310 as the reference performance in its official datasheets. The RAF itself acknowledged this.

I am not criticize how it fits to that reference data, I am criticizing that the reference data itself does not fit very well in the majority of the data. Namely, the FTH is too high, all the normal production planes were in the order of 19 500 feet, not 23 000 or more...

It can be seen that the DCS model increasingly diverges from even that flawed BS 543 data as altitude increases... which I believe is partly because the reference data was flawed to start with (engine was abnormal when measured in 1943), and party because the weight corrections are more than likely not have been taken into account... which will yield very small effects in low or moderate altitudes, but will be increasingly noticable with altitude (=flight attitude) increase. Its not a single issue, I believe its a cumulative issue.

I fully believe that YoYo's calculating methods and modelling is probably sound (which is why it is not very difficult to find possible bugs - it works and reacts like real life!), but IMO with the choice of reference data and the particular pitfalls in that data made several small margins of error that add up in the end.

Still, if I followed this thread correctly, the fact that the dcs spit is allegedly faster than IRL, it would have the nice side effect of soothing the people that are complaining about a 1943 aircraft going up against the K4 and D9 :D

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Allegedly slower as well as faster but within a small margin perhaps. But still not soothing, LOL.

This abnormal increase in FTH will gradually boost the performance and operational altitude range to surreal levels, but it also has some effect on low/medium altitudes.

I'm enjoying this discussion and I understand more after I read over your earlier post more carefully.

Please, how does it affect the low/medium altitude performance? I'm looking at an airspeed graph for BS.310 and it seem that altitude drops off at 8,000ft, but MA.648's airspeed doesn't drop off until about 9,500ft. Is this what you're getting at?

2 Kurfurst 2

 

THe calculations shows that 4.85 km (16 kft) static margin shifts to 20.7 kft at 404 mph. By the way, I could not find 23 kft at the graphs, the highest value is 22 kft for BS. 543.

 

THe small differencies can be due to measurements errors.

If you mean DCS curve corner, it's actually lower - see the intermediate (cut MP) range with unusual break up.

I do not believe in this measurement error, its a rubber arguement anyway, fits all situations and sizes. And these measurement errors only show in the two references chosen - the prototype and the experimental plane...?

Yes, thats the point (hsitoric charts also gave it as 20 000 Feet with 400 mph RAM).

Normally measured range of FTH with serial production Spits cc 19.5-20k feet. Only prototype BS 543 and experimental MA 648 is higher, both stated in report, why (carburetor changes - not serialized apparently)

The 23k feet is actually my (rough) reading from your first curve on DCS model Spit. Second shows it closer but bit above even BS 543.

My question is why is DCS Mark IX full throttle height (and resulting performance) cc. 2500-3000 feet higher than

a) measured in real life on all serial production IX LFs or VII/VIIILFs - expect the two proto/experimental planes oddly chosen as references

b) theoriatically possible with cc 404 mph ram shown by your calculation

c) theoriatically possible with 400 mph ram shown by WW2 RAF calculation for Merlin 66

If you say 3000 feet deviation in full throttle height is small difference - sure, please increase then the FTH of existing prop jobs by this amount. See what gives from that... ;)

P.S. Yes weight does have very minimal at low/medium altitudes but its the high altitude (FTH and above) I am talking about where this effect is increasingly important. See graphically this chart for the 109 http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/LZS109G_Blatt23_weight-effect_speed.jpg

Since the DCS model increasingly diverges from the reference, I guess its worth checking wheater this is because DCS current pre-FM models 100% weight based on raw data for 95% weight.

I'm enjoying this discussion and I understand more after I read over your earlier post more carefully.

 

Please, how does it affect the low/medium altitude performance? I'm looking at an airspeed graph for BS.310 and it seem that altitude drops off at 8,000ft, but MA.648's airspeed doesn't drop off until about 9,500ft. Is this what you're getting at?

Yes - using the above example, imo realistically the curve should start to drop off after 8000 feet. MA 648's airspeed dropped of later because it experimented with a new type of carburetor that was better, but it wasn't used on serial planes so why is this the reference...? Or if used for example as a source to establish drag - why not correct/adjust aspects (FTH, air intake effiency) we know to be different from serial planes accordingly to fit known results of serial production standard?

Speed effect may not be so great (say 10 mph on these selected altitude bands), but effect on climb is very significant.

another?

There is no other as of now.

The Mustang is a late 44/early 45 model.

 

And BTW, it is not the machine that makes the superiority, but the pilot. At least within these performance ranges. It sounds trivial, but a better tactic and knowledge of aerial combat will get you much further than those extra 30 or 100 HP, IMHO.

 

Also, I found this website for anyone who is interested.

edit: It seems like every permutation of the Mk.IX is covered, incl. the Merlin 61,66 and 70.

 

Cheers

Other people may get their panties in a bunch over which block number the P-51D is, but it makes literally NO DIFFERENCE when it still has late 1943 performance.

And that goes for the Spitfire LF Mark 9, too.

I'll make this real simple. I have no desire, incentive, or impetus to buy a 1943 plane (not to mention TWO of them) when they are competing against 1945 planes.

Introduce mid-1944 engine settings for either of them so they can at least begin to compete against the 1945 planes, then I'll open my wallet. Or introduce 1945 planes to fight against them. One or the other.

404mph @ 21,000ft